Culturally Valued Analogue

(STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

This is an important concept in SRV.   It relates to analysing services for (and other interventions with) devalued people.  Such devalued people are often offered services which are 'strange', 'weird', 'unusual' compared with those that fulfil the same basic needs for valued or 'normal' people.  For instance, most relatively valued people will live in ordinary housing, work in ordinary workplaces, gain education in ordinary education facilities and take their leisure in ordinary leisure places.  Devalued people are frequently receive such basic life needs (home, work, education, leisure) in less than normative locations and programmes.  Sometimes it is difficult to understand what is really going on- whether these 'alternative' (less than normative) solutions are because of a real societal need (for instance with prisoners or with potentially dangerous people who are mentally ill) or solely because they are viewed as 'just a devalued group, getting its 'just deserts'', that is to say, less than that offered to valued people.

Such 'strange' alternate facilities are often difficult to understand and analyse.  SRV uses three methods of determining 'what is going on' in these facilities.

These are:

Model Coherency                        -           Model Coherency

Culturally Valued Analogue         -          dealt with on this page

Overt/Covert  Goals and

Manifest and Latent  Function       -        Overt/Covert, Manifest/Latent 

RE-WRITE:

The Culturally Valued Analogue

What Is An Analogue

·       An analogue is something that is like or similar to something else.  It may have a similar function.  For instance one could say that gills in fish are an analogue of lungs in mammals- they do the same job. An analogue can be like a model or pattern.

How A Culturally Valued Analogue Can Help With Determining Model Coherency

·       Culturally Valued Analogue can apply to major life functions (home, work, education, leisure) and also to smaller life functions (sub-components of the above like cooking, job-training, relationships, etc.)

·       A Culturally Valued Analogue (CVA) is a representation of something that MOST ordinary valued citizens would VALUE.

·       For instance, we could describe the component elements that make up what we think as a valued FUNCTION/ACTIVITY/FACILITY

·       An analogue of this FUNCTION/ACTIVITY/FACILITY would be a representation of it through our description of its component elements.

·       A useful way to analyses a service and compare its stated purpose with a CVA is by examining the components under the separate headings and analysing what makes up the FUNCTION/ACTIVITY/FACILITY.

CVA Components

·       What, How, With Whom, By Whom, When, Where, Language Used, Image Projected

·       So if we were analysing a FUNCTION/ACTIVITY/FACILITY we would look at:

·       What- happens

·       How- do we know how to

·       With whom- do we share this

·       By Whom- are decisions made

·       When- are do we do it

·       Where- is it located

·       Language Used- what is appropriate

·       Image Projected- what image does this project

·       All considered for a highly valued FUNCTION/ACTIVITY/FACILITY for valued people

Using the CVA to Determine Model Coherency

To do this we use a Spider-graph:

Language Used:               Words, Labels, Descriptions

What:                                  Content, Activity

How:                                   Style, Ambience, Methods, Processes

With Whom:                       Groupings, Characteristics, Size, Roles

By Whom:                           Staff:  Identity, Competence, Background, Roles

When:                                  Timings, Rhythms, Durations, Routines

Where:                                 Location, Internal and External Design Features, Use of Space

Image Projected:                Interior and Exterior

INSERT WORKED EXAMPLE

Determining Model Coherency Using a CVA

REWRITE AND EXPAND:

·       After visiting a service for people-at-risk, it is useful to determine how model coherent the service is.  This is often called the Conciliation Exercise.  It is described fully elsewhere. (INSERT HYPERLINK)

·       It is useful to note that this is best done as a brainstorm exercise of all experiences of the group on the visit.  This is followed by an analysis of the brainstorm outcome into categories (from the Ratings described in a separate section).  Then the group determines who the service are (and what their wounds are), what the people really need, what is a valued way of meeting that need.  Then they look at what is really happening, what this means for the service user, and what the likely outcome is for the them.  Finally they decide how things could change.

·       There is now a deeper analysis of this subject; this is called Model Coherency Impact.

Model Coherency Impact Rating

Back to SRV Explication